Well, it's finally happened: http://sev.prnewswire.com/computer-electronics/20080225/LAM06125022008-1.html No doubt many of you are happy. IMHO this suit is rather too much. Network Solutions isn't permanently blocking anyone from being able to register their desired domain names elsewhere, and they're not pointing a gun to your heads compelling you to register it with them. But...that's what happens when you give someone a cause to sue you, even if you believe you're right.
I've wondered about domain registrars doing this for years, and my questions were finally answered. They shoulda known better
They only held them for the five days they could before paying the fees. So, you wait a few days and buy it elsewhere.
Well OK, but most of the people don't know that and they fall in the netsol trap. It is totally unfair and really harms all the companies. Hopefully this law suit will go through and succeed as such practices are really beyond the business ethics.
I don't personally agree with how they did it, but I don't think it goes against business ethics at all. This is very similar to the way most retail businesses are run. They find out what people are interested in, buy it and turn around and sell it to them for a higher price. Ever done a special order at a store? They charge as much as 2-3 times as much for a "special order" even though the only difference may be the color. The "special order" item usually costs the store less because the item is not warehoused by the store, but since they don't carry it regularly, they charge you more for this "special item." All domain registrars have a domain search utility. So if you didn't want to pay 34.99 per domain, why were you searching from networksolutions anyway? It would be better if they had disclosed it, sure. They could have even said it like, "when you search for a name we put a hold on it so that it cannot be purchased while you complete your transaction." That would have made it seem like a good service then. It's not like they bought the domain and then wanted you to pay more than their standard 34.99. Consumers need to start taking more responsibility for their own actions. If you don't know what you are doing, do a little research first. I don't see any ethics violations here.
Business ethics according to who, though? Even businesses don't agree what is ethical and what isn't, and none can force the other to adopt their view. See, bluegrass found simple solutions to a relatively simple problem. Some just find it conveniently easier to complain rather than proactively take action on their own, albeit complaining for the purpose of discussion is useful in certain scenarios.
Bluegrass ought to learn a little law before blathering abt no ethics violations. Fraud is using deception to acquire that to which you are not otherwise entitled. NS invited in the public to use what was supposedly a service, yet used that same service to underhandedly deny those consumers their choices, while grabbing those domain names themselves to capitalize on those same consumers. This is fraud, and theft by deception.
If Network Solutions, say, registers those domain names permanently, then it would make a good argument. But they hold them only up to 4 days, or if one calls them to delete it. That's one thing they've got in their favor. Plus they've since put a notice on the middle right of their front page talking about it. The main component of fraud and deception is intent, which I've yet to figure out how one can possibly demonstrate that in Network Solutions' case.
I thought they did it to safeguard their customer's domain. If you are not going to register it from them then why search there in the first place.
The intent was to gain extra money by deception - there is your intent. How anyone can miss the obvious fact that NS wanted to gain more than the market value of the domain name by hijacking it from you is beyond me. The fact that they did it for only a few days makes it worse, not better. This shows that they were not out to steal the name itself, in which they had no interest - they were out to prevent you from getting it so that they could overcharge.
Again, they didn't charge more than their standard fee. If you weren't going to buy from them, why use their tool to search?
And how exactly are they deceiving you to begin with? Has Network Solutions given any guarantees you'll get the domain name after searching in their site, much more paid for it? Speaking of which, no registrar on earth can make that guarantee either. Why make guarantees or promises they can't realistically keep? So what if Network Solutions wants to gain more than what the market offers on the average for domain registration? It's not like anyone's being psychically influenced or having guns pointed at their heads forcing them to go with them only when other more affordable providers exist. You seem to think Network Solutions owes non-paying users anything. I don't know how you can compel someone to do what you expect if they don't have any agreements or obligations to you. If, say, Network Solutions registered and kept it for a whole year, that would be worse. Again, they only keep it for up to 4 days or if you call them to have it deleted and possibly enable you to register it elsewhere. Simple solution, of course, is to stop using their site to search. That'll make all your lives a whole lot easier.
A lawyer's take, plus a copy of the suit: http://tcattorney.typepad.com/techlaw/2008/02/class-action-fi.html#more Interesting, to say the least.
Perhaps you need to learn a little of the law. By your own definition, NSI did not commit fraud. Look at the end of your statement: not otherwise entitled. The term fraud assumes that you are taking something from somebody else. When you do a search for a domain and it comes up as available that means it is available for anybody to purchase, not just the person that searched. The closest form of fraud to what NSI is doing is 'bait and switch'. This also does not apply because they never advertised that you could get the domain for a lower price, nor did they charge more than their standard fee for a domain. Not only that, but they only used this service for 5 days without a notice. Anything after those first five days had a notice of exactly what they were going to do BEFORE you searched. And as the article Dave linked to stated, the notice was located right next to the search box. Giving somebody notice is hardly fraud. If what they did amounted to fraud, then the stock exchange would amount to fraud. What do you think stockbrokers do other than monitor stocks to see what people are buying and then buy those stocks to later sell them at a higher price? Since the person doing the search did not own the domain lease (in fact for NSI to reserve it, nobody had the lease on the domain at the time) no property was being taken from them. The fact that their search results shows the domain as available is also not a lie. It is still avaiable through them (and any other registrar after four days).